parshiot

Thursday, November 22, 2007

Standard traditional reading is that Yaakov struggled with an angel of Hashem. But we already saw in Vayera the possiblereading of Hashem assuming human form. Perhaps we should say the same here as well. The relevant local pesukim read {Bereishit 32}:

31 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: 'for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.'

Note that it does not say in all these places "an angel," in the JPS translation, but rather God. Of course, Elohim might be taken to mean "angel." Also, check out Judaica Press translation, which consistently renders it as an angel of God, or just angel. This is consistent with Rashi's explanation of the pesukim, which make this "man" a guardian angel for the nation from Esav, have the angel wish to leave at dawn to recite a song of praise to God, and have the promise being that Yaakov will meet Hashem later, who will rename him at Bet-El.

Yet, Yaakov calls the place Peniel, for seeing Elohim face to face. That may mean nothing, though. Compare with earlier in the same perek, where he talks of an encampment of God after seeing God's angels.

10 And God said unto him: 'Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name'; and He called his name Israel.

I would read this not as a separate incident (and not at Bet-El), but rather a summary, macro-statement, as opposed to the zooming-in narrative which happened in perek 32 in Maavar Yabbok. If the same incident, then it was Hashem who struggled with Yaakov. (If we wished to argue this, we would either have to appeal to the Documentary Hypothesis, leaving it as Bet-El as the location {and resolving the issue of the twice naming of Yisrael}, or else argue that pasuk 11 is indeed a separate prophecy, and that one happened in Bet-El, while the former one happened where it states, בְּבֹאוֹ מִפַּדַּן אֲרָם in general.)

Even if we say they are separate incidents, if in the second naming it was Hashem who did it, and in the first naming the "man" quacked like a Deity, then ...

However, we do not only have Chumash. We also have Nach. And in Nach, we have Hoshea 12:

ד בַּבֶּטֶן, עָקַב אֶת-אָחִיו; וּבְאוֹנוֹ, שָׂרָה אֶת-אֱלֹהִים.

4 In the womb he took his brother by the heel, and by his strength he strove with a godlike being;

5 So he strove with an angel, and prevailed; he wept, and made supplication unto him; at Beth-el he would find him, and there he would speak with us;

Here, it is clear in pasuk 5 that he strove with an angel -- וַיָּשַׂר אֶל-מַלְאָךְ. Then, it would not be Hashem, but rather an angel, with whom Yaakov struggled. But then there is pasuk 4, which states שָׂרָה אֶת-אֱלֹהִים, preserving the ambiguity. Since the ambiguity is immediately resolved, a good translation, as above, is "a godlike being." And the end of pasuk 5, that he would find him at Bet-El is the link to perek 25, where Hashem repeats the angel's renaming. Indeed, this is a firm basis for Rashi's explanation.

However, we must realize that Hoshea was written well after Bereishit. It reflects one understanding of what happened in Vayishlach, and how those pesukim are to be understood. But, just perhaps, this is not the only interpretation of these pesukim.

This is a difficult position to put forth. After all, Hoshea is a Navi, and thus wrote his sefer, and delivered his prophecy, with nevua, much greater than the ruach hakodesh attributed to Rashi. Yet while the message comes from Hashem, the specific coloring and presentation is up to the prophet himself. And the point here was one to Hoshea's contemporaries, not to give absolute interpretation to other Biblical verses. Perhaps akin to how sometimes prophets speak not as prophecy, but as talmidei chachamim.

This particular issue might be what condemns this view all the more so to heresy. While the third principle establishes God's incorporeality, the sixth of Rambam's principles establishes that all the words of the prophets are true. The question is to what extent to take this principle.

4 comments:

because it is only kefiradik if that is not what was actually intended by Chumash (and Hashem). (at least in terms of the corporeality.) Otherwise, it is truth. Rambam formulated the ikkarim after understanding Chumash, Chazal, and philosophy. But some of his (religious Jewish) contemporaries argued with him, and cited various pesukim/maamarei Chazal to that end.

Are you saying that peshuto shel mikra must always be an acceptable theological position? That could get you into problems. According to many people, isn't the pshat of "mi kamocha baelim hashem" that more than one god exists?

it would seem to be so ("that peshuto shel mikra must always be an acceptable theological position"), if we take "ain mikra yotzei midei peshuto" as some take it. That is, the peshat remains valid.

I would imagine that even Rambam would hold that position. For his argument that the peshat in pesukim seeming to address corporeality of God it that it is really a metaphor seems to assume that peshat has validity. Otherwise perhaps he could say that that is the peshat, but we follow the derash that this is not so.

The result of this might be, for some people, that a theologically untenable explanation simply cannot be peshat. Someone was telling me today (in response to the above) that the interpretation of the aforementioned pesukim (and the reference to Elohim) must be like Rashi, that it is an angel, and that that has to be peshat. So it can go both ways.

About "mi kamocha," if people think that that is peshat, then there are two possibilities (assuming peshuto shel mikra is by definition theologically tenable): 1) they are correct, in which case it is not kefira, but rather truth. Or 2) despite the fact that they think this is the peshat, in fact it is not, and so their position is both incorrect and kefirah.

That is, we need not accept the reality of other gods, so much as take it as a reference to the fact that others believe in deities with power. Hashem is more powerful than all of these, either because His actual deeds are greater than even their purported deeds, or because His deeds are actual while they and their deeds are fictional.

But perhaps one can argue with me and say that the position in Torah is that there are indeed other powerful beings, but they are subservient to Hashem, and assigned their tasks by Hashem. Just like the Sun exists and shines for the world at Hashem's command. But even so, Hashem tells the Jews that "Lo Yihyeh lecha Elohim Acherim Al Panai."

Criticism Isn’t Always Based on Bigotry
-
Rabbi Yaakov Menken
One of the things I have noticed over the years is that people who strongly
identify with a given Hashkafa, cannot abide criticism from ...

Overheard: What do you call that again?
-
Older fellow with glasses: I see that book in your taliis bag, called "Forgiveness". What is it about? New Age Guy: It is about how you have to forgive all t...

Recent Posts

YESHIVA WORLD NEWS

Followers

about

parshablog is published by (rabbi) josh waxman (joshwaxman [at] yahoo [dot] com), a grad student in Revel, a grad student in a Phd program in computer science at CUNY. i recently received semicha from RIETS. this blog is devoted to parsha as well as whatever it is i am currently learning.